All Things Second Amendment

[Lon]

You mean above the right to own some weapons distinguished only by their ability to facilitate a thing no one should reasonably desire. Just so.

:think: Like an AK-47? I know a couple of police officers that have/need them.... Its always a slippery slope with these 'bans.' I keep thinking about a guy who might own a tank. Sure, there are problems, but so is owning a bulldozer. We don't really see that many tank or bulldozer attacks. I personally don't want or need an AK-47 or a tank. My cop and military family members do, and it seems reasonable for their reasoning. Is there no balance, capability, possibility for a solution?

 

[Stripe]

I said that laws impede your freedom. They proscribe and prohibit, define its parameters. And there's no inherent vice in that. The value of a law is found in what it serves.

Which shows that you don't understand the law or what it is for.

I'm a licensed practitioner.

The law is given freely to all men. There is no bar to attainment.

You don't understand the law or what it is for.

You? Not so much.

Nope. I have just as much right to and ability to understand the law as the next man. It takes years of study to fool yourself into believing that an education grants you more privileged access to the law.

Most people don't own ARs and bump stocks. And removing those guns from the public isn't disarming them, only restricting how they are armed.

Ordering people to turn over their guns is not disarming them. Gotcha.

How many years of law degrees does it take to believe this?

It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.

"Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?

These guns are designed to kill people. The threat is very intended. You just don't like it that men can defend themselves.

I advocate what works everywhere it is applied.

Banning cars would end traffic fatalities.

Stronger gun laws demonstrably work.

If you remove all the guns, nobody can shoot anybody.

Wake us up when you have got something not inane.

We know countries with stronger gun laws have lower rates of gun violence.

When you ban cars, traffic crashes stop.

and homicides

Nope.

Gun laws of the sort that ban access to the weapons I'm speaking about will necessarily impact murder rates, and reduce them.

Except that's not happened anywhere such laws have been implemented and won't happen in the future.

Take the Las Vegas shooting. If that fellow hadn't had the ARs he had he wouldn't have been able to kill that many people.

And if we banned elevators, he wouldn't have been able to transport all his equipment to the 32nd floor.

The same could be said for most if not all of the people who killed in the places I noted. Now unless the argument is that all those murdered people would have been murdered by some other person or means, it's logically impossible to suggest there's no impact on rate. It may be incremental in the larger setting of suicides and accidents, but it's still a reduction and that's the aim.

You forgot to factor in the lives saved by men armed and ready to defend themselves.

https://youtu.be/B4HEchh0XD8

 

[Town Heretic]

I have just as much right to and ability to understand the law as the next man

Go get it. I love an optimist.

. It takes years of study to fool yourself into believing that an education grants you more privileged access to the law.

And it only appears to take a moment and a little wind to talk yourself into believing you know something with no external and objective validation.

Ordering people to turn over their guns is not disarming them.

Not if they can have other guns, no.

How many years of law degrees does it take to believe this?

Years of law degrees? lain:

"Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?

Unless you believe that these guns were designed to accomplish mass murderers that consequence would fall firmly into the unintended consequence category.

You just don't like it that men can defend themselves.

If you can't defend yourself with the guns I advocate you'll only hurt yourself or someone else with any other.

Banning cars would end traffic fatalities.

We have to have cars. We don't have to have ARs. There are other guns that can do what we need them to do while lacking the capacity to do what no sane individual should ever want done.

 

[Stripe]

Go get it. I love an optimist.

:AMR:

And it only appears to take a moment and a little wind to talk yourself into believing you know something with no external and objective validation.

The law was given to all men. Pretending that a degree is necessary to access it is the height of arrogance.

You do not know what the law is or what it is for.

Not if they can have other guns, no.

Don't worry, we soon won't. lain:

Unless you believe that these guns were designed to accomplish mass murderers that consequence would fall firmly into the unintended consequence category.

Is reading your second language? Go back and read what I wrote these guns are for.

If you can't defend yourself with the guns I advocate you'll only hurt yourself or someone else with any other.

And who are you again?

We prefer liberty to the dictatorial demands of bureaucratic Nazis like you would have in charge.

We have to have cars.

No, we don't.

We don't have to have ARs.

We don't have to bow to your demands, until you rally enough political momentum to get men with guns to enforce them.

There are other guns that can do what we need them to do while lacking the capacity to do what no sane individual should ever want done.

No, there aren't.

From your upstairs window, where you happen to keep your small arms (for argument's sake), you notice an obviously rabid coyote charging straight towards your backyard, where your kin are frolicking unaware (and unarmed), and you think that a shotgun (hope it's not out of range!) or a bolt-gun (you better be a fantastic shot!) is going to "accomplish" the defense of your family equivalently to a service rifle or service carbine? Or even "an AR?"

Here's how it goes with a shotgun:
"Is it in range yet? How about now? Now? OK fire! Oh only wounded it, Fire! Oh missed. (Reload, and family is attacked).

A bolt-gun:
"Range not an issue, this is a longer range small arm, so line it up, Fire! Oo! Missed, cycle the action, Fire again! Did I get it? Oh! Cycle the action again---fire! Was it in time?"

"An AR:"
"Bang! Missed. Bang! Missed. Bang bang bang bang bang! Clipped it. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang got it."

Maybe it's a 'momma' bear sprinting after her wayward cub, that's careening toward your family playing out in your backyard, instead of a rabid coyote. Maybe it's a man, and you know there's been a violent crime committed recently in your neighborhood. Maybe it's . . . something where "an AR" is actually going to do something other than "killing a lot of people in a very short time."

Does this prove me right? Of course I don't hope to be proven right by you. But does it prove me reasonable and rational? I think it does. I think you're unreasonable and irrational if you deny that it does too.

 

[Town Heretic]

The law was given to all men. Pretending that a degree is necessary to access it is the height of arrogance.

I'm talking about the law of the land here. You can self-promote yourself as an expert in whatever else suits your narrative.

Is reading your second language?

The guy who thinks, "How many years of law degrees does it take to believe this?" is running a marathon without legs when it comes to challenging anyone on how to read or write the English language.

Here's how it actually went, for those who might be as confused as Stripe is pretending to be.

Me: It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.

Stripe: "Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?

So I told him.

And who are you again?

A voice of reason in the wilderness. And you're a little thicket.

On the necessity of cars.

No, we don't.

I keep forgetting you're a foreigner. Look, your country may be the size of a postage stamp, but here we cover distances and need the things. We do outlaw unsafe vehicles from taking the road though.

We don't have to bow to your demands,

We don't do much bowing here, but you're free to do whatever you want in your country. Here...here you can't even vote.

until you rally enough political momentum to get men with guns to enforce them.

Don't really need to do that here. We're an essentially law abiding people. And attrition, along with the inability to manufacture or sell the weapons in question will take care of things over time.

On guns that can do the job without ARs.

No, there aren't.

All evidence to the contrary, given the weapons I'm in favor of did an ample job before the ones I oppose existed.

 

[Stripe]

You can self-promote yourself as an expert in whatever else suits your narrative.

Notice how I say that the law is accessible to all, but somehow this is me puffing myself up.

I keep forgetting you're a foreigner.

I keep forgetting you're a racist.

 

[Stripe]

Here's how it actually went, for those who might be as confused as Stripe is pretending to be.

Nope.

That conversation was over the reason we have guns. How about you quote what I actually said. :up:

No?

Ok, I'll do it. :up:

"Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about? These guns are designed to kill people. The threat is very intended. You just don't like it that men can defend themselves.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

Astounding. All the letters in the right place and whatnot. Objectively, demonstrably wrong, but you can't knock the spelling.

That conversation was over the reason we have guns.

That has never been the conversation. It's about the right to bear arms and over the line in the sand for reasonable exercise. At least that's been my part, the part you invited yourself into while hilariously claiming the thread was fine until I got here.

How about you quote what I actually said.

I did. I quoted everything on the point. You're adding a couple of remarks after that, in your response to it and for some reason pretending it's something else.

Here it is with links and in chronological order:

It's not reasonable to react to a murderer by disarming law-abiding people through gun confiscations.

Most people don't own ARs and bump stocks. And removing those guns from the public isn't disarming them, only restricting how they are armed.

It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.

"Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?

Unless you believe that these guns were designed to accomplish mass murderers that consequence would fall firmly into the unintended consequence category.

So at that point I had answered on exactly what I meant by unintended threat, which really wasn't unclear to begin with.

His idea that "these guns are designed to kill people," came after that and its inclusion wouldn't have altered why I wrote what I wrote, which came before it, not after it.

Notice how I say that the law is accessible to all, but somehow this is me puffing myself up.

Here's what actually happened:

The law was given to all men. Pretending that a degree is necessary to access it is the height of arrogance.

I'm talking about the law of the land here. You can self-promote yourself as an expert in whatever else suits your narrative.

I keep forgetting you're a racist.

You can't forget something that isn't true, foreigner.

 

[Stripe]

Astounding. None of the words in the right place and whatnot. Objectively, demonstrably wrong, and unresponsive to boot.

That has never been the conversation.

It's not been part of your narrative, but you're forever asserting your agenda as the outer limits of what is to be discussed.

Let's review:

Guns are for killing people.

It's about the right to bear arms and over the line in the sand for reasonable exercise.

Nobody knows what you're talking about. :idunno:

I quoted everything on the point.

Nope.

There it is in chronological order.

So at that point I had answered on exactly what I meant by unintended threat, which really wasn't unclear to begin with.

Nobody is any the wiser. :idunno:

His idea that "these guns are designed to kill people," came after that and its inclusion wouldn't have altered why I wrote what I wrote, which came before it, not after it.

:dizzy:

What actually happened is all there, for those who want to wade through the foreigner's nonsense.

 

[Stripe]

It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.

Guns don't pose an unintended threat; they pose an intended threat. Guns are for killing people. That is what they are for.

Your "unintended" threat idea is bizarre nonsense.

 

[Town Heretic]

Guns don't pose an unintended threat;

Let's look at that again: "It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility."

ARs were not designed or intended to be used as an instrument of mass murder, but the ease with which they facilitate that outcome set against a utility easily met by weapons that don't, should lead honest, decent, and reasonable men to oppose them.

 

[Stripe]

ARs were not designed or intended to be used as an instrument of mass murder.

Nope.

They are designed to kill people.

The ease with which they facilitate that outcome set against a utility easily met by weapons that don't, should lead honest, decent, and reasonable men to oppose them.

Nope.

Their effectiveness means they are the best choice and should be celebrated.

Is narrative all you have?

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

And yet nothing in what you're about to write contradicts my point: ARs were not designed or intended to be used as an instrument of mass murder.

They are designed to kill people.

And yet, nothing in that actually contradicts my point: The ease with which they facilitate that outcome set against a utility easily met by weapons that don't, should lead honest, decent, and reasonable men to oppose them.

 

[Town Heretic]

:think: Like an AK-47?

Right. I support a ban on fully or semi automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, speed loaders, and bump stocks. Essentially the sort of weapons and aids that make mass murder by gun more likely and easier to accomplish. I also support mandatory gun safety courses, and the ability for law enforcement to have individuals they believe may pose a danger to others, with probable cause, examined by mental health professionals to evaluate their fitness or unfitness to have a weapon, subject to revisiting. That sort of thing. There are a number of models that have been in place for a long time among our European cousins. And all of them are more effective by far than what we're doing.

Its always a slippery slope with these 'bans.'

I don't exactly know what you mean. We had some measures here that weren't sustained. And given my objection, what else would follow, potentially? I haven't seen that in the other models and given our Constitution, I can't see how it could happen here absent enough of the population demanding it, which is a pretty high threshold to meet.

I keep thinking about a guy who might own a tank. Sure, there are problems, but so is owning a bulldozer.

What's the argument for a private citizen owning a functioning tank?

We don't really see that many tank or bulldozer attacks.

I don't know of any, but then, a guy snaps on a construction site and starts going after people with a dozer he can be shot and stopped or even pulled from it without a great deal of difficulty. A tank? Not so much.

I personally don't want or need an AK-47 or a tank.

No one in the private sector has any need of either.

My cop and military family members do

A policeman or soldier uses them as a tool of the trade. And they have significant training, regulation, and answerability for everything related.

Is there no balance, capability, possibility for a solution?

Either we allow those weapons in the stream of commerce or we don't. The solution is to make sure only trained professionals possess them. If we don't do that, get ready to bury more children, church goers, club and concert goers, etc.

 

[Stripe]

Nothing in what you're about to write contradicts my point.

Then stop arguing with me. :up:

ARs were not designed or intended to be used as an instrument of mass murder.

They are designed to kill people.

Nothing in that actually contradicts my point:

Of course it does. Their effectiveness means that they are to be desired.

Are you going to keep cutting off the points I make and pretend they don't exist?

 

[Stripe]

Either we allow those weapons in the stream of commerce or we don't. The solution is to make sure only trained professionals possess them. If we don't do that, get ready to bury more children, church goers, club and concert goers, etc.

Or we can look through your false dichotomy and ignore your emotional manipulation.

 

[Lon]

Right. I support a ban on fully or semi automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, speed loaders, and bump stocks. Essentially the sort of weapons and aids that make mass murder by gun more likely and easier to accomplish. I also support mandatory gun safety courses, and the ability for law enforcement to have individuals they believe may pose a danger to others, with probable cause, examined by mental health professionals to evaluate their fitness or unfitness to have a weapon, subject to revisiting. That sort of thing. There are a number of models that have been in place for a long time among our European cousins. And all of them are more effective by far than what we're doing.

To me? Kind of like "ban every piece of metal that can be used to make...." One terrorist used a car, another a bomb. Now an unsophisticated kid isn't going to be doing that, but I recently heard a cop doing a seminar say news media is much to blame, educating and teaching terrorists how to do it better. Do we ban the media from free speech as well? I see a fundamental attack on our liberties with all prohibition and believe 'take it away' is like corporal punishment: It just doesn't teach anything nor does it instill value. In fact, as a professional educator myself, I believe it dampens the embrace of values.

I don't exactly know what you mean. We had some measures here that weren't sustained. And given my objection, what else would follow, potentially? I haven't seen that in the other models and given our Constitution, I can't see how it could happen here absent enough of the population demanding it, which is a pretty high threshold to meet.

Where is the floor? Where is the ceiling? I'd imagine we are all on page to some degree, we don't want nuclear energy in any ol' civilian's hand nor do we want to take away everyone's butter knife. We aren't teaching responsible nuclear handling and values to every student, but let's go back to those who would and could benefit from an AK-47, a police officer, a soldier, or possibly other. Maybe you are for a special consideration and application for such? I'm just against banning them altogether when I can see their functionality in some of the populace. I'm not opposed to a man owning a bulldozer either BUT I don't want them in the hands of teens either. That'd do a LOT more damage than an AK-47.

What's the argument for a private citizen owning a functioning tank?

I can't think of one... Maybe a mercenary helping out another country. Perhaps a city needing to transport the mayor. I'd likely agree with you that this would be the 'ceiling' but maybe a guy buys one cheap and converts it to a bulldozer or something.... It was simply trying to understand some of this discussion by extremes. We know most people can't even afford a tank (maybe Schwarzenegger - more power to him).

I don't know of any, but then, a guy snaps on a construction site and starts going after people with a dozer he can be shot and stopped or even pulled from it without a great deal of difficulty. A tank? Not so much.

There is a story.... Police did take him out.

No one in the private sector has any need of either.

It has to do with whether or not a man has a right to protect himself, family, and property. We have a long history as well as pride in being ready, as a nation. "I" don't need or want one, but I don't want to force my or your values. People already have these. There are tens of millions of these guns owned in America. Handguns are used in crimes exponentially more than any rifle. Of those millions of assault rifles, less than 1.4% (!) are ever used in a crime.

A policeman or soldier uses them as a tool of the trade. And they have significant training, regulation, and answerability for everything related.

So you advocate those who are trained and need them can have them?

Either we allow those weapons in the stream of commerce or we don't. The solution is to make sure only trained professionals possess them. If we don't do that, get ready to bury more children, church goers, club and concert goers, etc.

While rifles are used undeniably, handguns make up the largest number of murders and other crimes in the U.S.

Assault rifles do cause more damage than handguns and help shooters make their marks, so I've some of the same concerns with you here. Its not an easy thread. My participation is open to anything that is manageable and good for all. When I was a teen, I'd seen and handled several assault weapons, including an AK-47. None of us were shooting up schools back then because our values, wholly as a nation, was very much against it. Most of us thought it was cowardly, like shooting fish in a barrel, and against God and humanity.

 

[Town Heretic]

To me? Kind of like "ban every piece of metal that can be used to make...."

No idea why it seems that way to you. It's not hard to distinguish between a machine gun and a shotgun, or between a gun designed in a way that makes it ideal for wholesale slaughter and what isn't.

One terrorist used a car, another a bomb. Now an unsophisticated kid isn't going to be doing that, but I recently heard a cop doing a seminar say news media is much to blame, educating and teaching terrorists how to do it better. Do we ban the media from free speech as well? I see a fundamental attack on our liberties with all prohibition and believe 'take it away' is like corporal punishment: It just doesn't teach anything nor does it instill value. In fact, as a professional educator myself, I believe it dampens the embrace of values.

Here's how I see it. The right is to bear arms, not every sort of arm, not bazookas or rpgs, etc. And as I noted to someone a bit ago, this particular sort of weapon is relatively new on the scene, wasn't present at all when the Founders framed the right and found the weapons of their day sufficient to meet it.

So, to repeat a part of my position voiced prior: The ease with which they facilitate that outcome set against a utility easily met by weapons that don't, should lead honest, decent, and reasonable men to oppose them.

Where is the floor?

It's found in the right itself. The rest is an argument about exercise, from what weapons are too dangerous to permit, to what practices are (like shooting into the air or over someone else's property).

Where is the ceiling?

That's what we're talking about.

I'd imagine we are all on page to some degree, we don't want nuclear energy in any ol' civilian's hand nor do we want to take away everyone's butter knife. We aren't teaching responsible nuclear handling and values to every student, but let's go back to those who would and could benefit from an AK-47, a police officer, a soldier, or possibly other.

I have from the beginning made it clear that I'm speaking to civilian use and ownership, those things introduced into the regular stream of commerce. I want the police to have maximum firepower, just as I expect them to have serious training and oversight in their use. Soldiers likewise, along with tanks and aircraft carriers that I also wouldn't want to see in the hands of a private citizen.

It has to do with whether or not a man has a right to protect himself, family, and property.

No, there's no argument on that point, least of all from me.

We have a long history as well as pride in being ready, as a nation. "I" don't need or want one, but I don't want to force my or your values. People already have these. There are tens of millions of these guns owned in America.

Sure. And we should have a buy back program to begin with. A lot of people will turn them in by that means for a few easy reasons I've noted talking to someone around here. If you can't take it to a shooting range, can't use it without criminal penalty attaching, why keep it? Most likely won't. There may be some functional accommodation for pure collectors, relating to guns that can be displayed, but rendered incapable of use.

Attrition will take care of the rest. If you can't manufacture or sell them, you can't replace them.

Handguns are used in crimes exponentially more than any rifle. Of those millions of assault rifles, less than 1.4% (!) are ever used in a crime.

That's right. But this isn't an argument aimed at solving all crime. It's particularly aimed at making the most horrific less likely. And it does that everywhere it's in place.

While rifles are used undeniably, handguns make up the largest number of murders and other crimes in the U.S.

Sure. They're the easiest to conceal and they're lethal enough to do most of what you'd want to do with a weapon, legally or not.

None of us were shooting up schools back then because our values, wholly as a nation, was very much against it. Most of us thought it was cowardly, like shooting fish in a barrel, and against God and humanity.

I think it's just a numbers game. Population plus number of available weapons and cost for them. In 1980 there were 226 million people living in the US. In 1990, 250 million. In 2000, 282 million. In 2015, 321 million. Now couple that serious uptick in population with a serious escalation of weapons affordability and availability and you have your answer. It's not a different context, it's numbers.

The majority of the worst mass shootings of the past decade have seen one of that sort of weapon, generally known under the AR designation, involved.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I had written up a response to much of this, and then lost it due to it being removed from my phone's clipboard. But there are a few things I want to address...

No, I'm saying we can make it harder for the evil man or nutter to accomplish his end,

We could do that, or we could make it so that the man doesn't even consider it, for fear of the repercussions of his actions.

AND we can do it without abolishing the right to bear arms.

Let me be clear here: I personally am not a fan of the wording of the second amendment.

I think it should read "the right to bear personal defense weapons."

I think that opportunity is often a motivator, that if you leave a loaded gun on your doorstep you may see a violence in your neighborhood that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

If we had a proper justice system, and you were to leave a loaded gun on your doorstep, it would be called negligence, and if someone then used it to commit a crime, you should be punished to the same extent that the criminal is.

Though, if those sort of laws were in place, one could leave a gun on their doorstep and NO ONE would dare touch it (because taking it is theft), let alone shoot someone with it, because the consequences would be fitting of the crime.

And here's the thing, where those weapons aren't in the stream of commerce we don't see a comparative uptick in some other means of mass murder.

The kind of weapons you want banned are so few and far in between that where they are already banned, it makes no difference simply because they are not the most commonly used weapon.

Again, I point to the fact that handguns are the most commonly used in crime, and those numbers are already through the roof.

In other words, what you're saying has already been said, just from a different perspective.

So yeah, if you make it harder to do a thing fewer people, especially those with mental issues, will accomplish that thing.

WHEREAS if you make it so that people don't WANT to do a thing, that thing will not occur very often at all, even by those with mental issues, which results in less crime being committed than if you were to simply make it difficult for someone to commit a crime.

No, but I can see how you need to believe that to maintain some sense of opposition. No, I'm a gun owner and defender of the right, but I also believe the the right to bear arms is not the right to bear every sort in the exercise of that freedom.

Except that that is exactly what you're doing now. Advocating the ban of certain weapons because one man used them to commit a crime.

We already have laws against murder

I won't point out the fact that there has to be multiple laws against murder means they are all inefficient, but what I will say is that the punishments given by our laws are ineffective because they are not painful enough to the one committing the crime.

Locking people up like animals is inhumane (and if you were to lock any animal up for years on end, the animal rights advocacy groups would be all over you for animal abuse, yet somehow it's ok to do it to humans...). Restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty are appropriate for punishing even criminals.

and otherwise you're back to advocating a wholesale change to the criminal justice system that is a terrific thing to discuss ad nauseam, but has no traction in the realm of probable actions.

I asked a friend of mine about this to get their perspective. Here is what they said:

We shouldn't waste our time opposing slavery, because it's not going to end. John the Baptist shouldn't oppose Herod because he's not going to change. We shouldn't oppose the godless schools because they're not going to change. We shouldn't oppose abortion, because it's not going to stop. Etc. a thousand times over. Apathy, which is hatred, can bring about that attitude. So can discouragement. So can fear. So can laziness. What doesn't bring about that attitude is hope, and love, for perfect love casts out fear.

So, Town, while I agree that it is easy to not advocate something that will not happen anytime soon, that by no means is a good reason to not advocate it at all.

Don't be apathetic. Don't be discouraged. Don't be fearful. Don't be lazy.

Don't do evil that good might come of it.

Advocate what is right, no matter the consequences.

What I'm speaking to has already happened once, to a lesser extent, and is a reasonable extension of approach within our system of existing law.

Again, don't do evil, that good might come of it.

Do right, and risk the consequences.

 

[northwye]

The Warrior Class is relevant to the topic of the Second Amendment.

We know from the history of World War II that at that time both Nazi Germany and Militant Japan had warrior classes, whose function was to fight and kill their enemies. We also know that at the time of the American Revolutionary War a warrior class developed within the the American Colonies, who were able to stand up against the British Redcoats, the best army in the world then.

But there were differences between that American Warrior Class in the Revolutionary War and in the War of 1812 and the Nazi Germany warrior class of the late thirties and the forties.

What were those differences? First of all, there was the Great Awakening Protestant Christian Revivals in the American Colonies right before the Revolutionary War. Some of yhe preachers became part of the warrior class. The American Warrior Class went to war against the Redcoats, but in the process of going to war they did not lose their Christian Morality. That is, they did not as a group become psychopaths.

It could be claimed that there were many more psychopaths in the Wehrmacht, especially in the SS divisions during World War II than there were in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and in the American army in World War II

What Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech - the Military-Industrial Complex - existed to some extent during the Truman Administration and the Korean War. But the Military-Industrial Complex-and Deep State Bureaucracy really got going in the administration of LBJ, the psychopath, and during his Viet-Nam War. At about the same time war became big business. And the dominant American culture became under attack, meaning some Christian morality was lost, and our Warrior Class was corrupted in part.

In Korea we were successful in making South Korea free of Communism and this also protected Japan from Communism. But in Viet-Nam we lost the war and were driven out.

It could be argued that the Nazi totalitarian movement was psychopathic, in that its members had no moral conscience.

But during and after the Viet-Nam War. and the increase in the power of what is now called the Deep State or the permanent, huge unelected federal bureaucracy. in part what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex, the American Warrior Class changed.

In the Korean War, we made South Korea free of communist control and in the process also protected Japan from Communism. But in the Viet-Nam War we were defeated by the Communists and ran out of Viet-Nam. It appears that the American Warrior Class was not as competent in the Viet-Nam War as it was during World War II and in the Little Bothers War in Korea.

But the Military-Industrial Complex made money from the Viet-Nam War.